Come on down: Floyd Landis

[flicker]

Mind if I hold you to that?

The last few interviews with Floyd have been quite awesome. It shows how a person can change for the better. That is inspiring! He is really giving me hope. I hope for his and the sport he steers clear of some of the leaders and former champions in the sport. At this point Floyd is on top of podium in my estimation.
!

 

[lean mean &green]

I'm not sure if you're being cynical when you made that comment

wasn't meant to be cynical at all. it's hard to forget what a mess floyd has made in the past but i'm liking him more and more each day.

also, i think his suggestion about graduated or tiered suspensions is right on the money.

 

[Rupert]

"What happened"

I'm waiting to see how things go before deciding whether Floyd's words are more self-serving or sincere. He seems more squared away than he did in the leaked emails. On the bad side, it always strikes me how often the words "what happened" versus "what I did" appear in apologies/confessions from public figures. Seems to me that regretting "what happened" admits less personal responsibility than regretting "what I did."

 

[thehog]

I'm waiting to see how things go before deciding whether Floyd's words are more self-serving or sincere. He seems more squared away than he did in the leaked emails. On the bad side, it always strikes me how often the words "what happened" versus "what I did" appear in apologies/confessions from public figures. Seems to me that regretting "what happened" admits less personal responsibility than regretting "what I did."

The point most of you miss is that pro cyclists don't feel guilt or remorse about using drugs. Especially those who rode in the early 2000's. Everybody was taking drugs. The UCI gave them tip offs on tests. Why feel guilt when you're fully enabled to use? Floyd is very honest in his assessment. No guilt or shame - it's just what cyclists did to compete and survive. No one forced him. You just use. Stop waiting for the tearful confessional. He's being honest.

 

[Hugh Januss]

The last few interviews with Floyd have been quite awesome. It shows how a person can change for the better. That is inspiring! He is really giving me hope. I hope for his and the sport he steers clear of some of the leaders and former champions in the sport. At this point Floyd is on top of podium in my estimation.
!

Why do I have this feeling that you are just putting us on again?

 

[dbrower]

Oh please. Landis is agreeing to any interview he can get lately. He likes the attention.

Please document the source of this claim, and cite some of the interviews.

I believe if you look, there's been about 5 or 6 since May. Let's see -- he talked to the WSJ. He talked to Ford/ESPN then, and just now; he talked to CN just now. He did the TV thing. That's about it - maybe one or two more, but that is hardly making the rounds promiscuously.

-dB

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The point most of you miss is that pro cyclists don't feel guilt or remorse about using drugs. Especially those who rode in the early 2000's. Everybody was taking drugs. The UCI gave them tip offs on tests. Why feel guilt when you're fully enabled to use? Floyd is very honest in his assessment. No guilt or shame - it's just what cyclists did to compete and survive. No one forced him. You just use. Stop waiting for the tearful confessional. He's being honest.

Ding, ding.

This goes back to his earlier interview on ESPN where he said he felt no guilt for doping.

"I don't feel guilty at all about having doped," Landis told ESPN.com. "I did what I did because that's what we [cyclists] did and it was a choice I had to make after 10 years or 12 years of hard work to get there.

What he has stated all along is that he wants to '"clear his conscience" - which is to stop the lying, in particular to his family.

 

[Mainerider]

Yaaaaawn......nothing new there. The writer was clearly pulling his punches....could have probed a lot more deeply.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Wait for it!

Stop waiting for the tearful confessional.

Unlike FLandis, should Armstrong be found guilty of a felony or two, (and not before) Public Strategies is saving the tearful confession for last.

Coming soon: An Oprah special where a famous athlete shares the dark side of being investigated by the FDA! "That's right Oprah, I doped because I wanted the best for my children, and to win one for those afflicted with cancer."

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yaaaaawn......nothing new there. The writer was clearly pulling his punches....could have probed a lot more deeply.

As has been mentioned many times now Floyd is probably limited by the ongoing investigation and the whistleblower suit as to how much detail he can go into. The parameters were probably outlined upfront before the interview began.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Unlike FLandis, should Armstrong be found guilty of a felony or two, (and not before) Public Strategies is saving the tearful confession for last.

Coming soon: An Oprah special where a famous athlete shares the dark side of being investigated by the FDA! "That's right Oprah, I doped because I wanted the best for my children, and to win one for those afflicted with cancer."

Felony, you are in dreamland if you think seriously that will happen. Of course if you do you will in good company around here.

 

[NashbarShorts]

Was he thinking of EPO when he said that? It's often said here that EPO gives up to a 15-20% boost, but I figure that might be true of the golden years, until 1996, but not necessarily of 2006-2010.

Wha??

EPO wasn't detectable until 2001, correct? And even then, it was easy to use a bit of laundry detergent on your "wick" to fool the pee test, right?? I think you're giving a bit of a 'free pass' to the guy who wore yellow from '99-2005

Also, if Floyd thinks "the drugs help, but not as much as your think"... how does he hold off the world's best riders over 4 mountain passes ('06 Tour), yet two years later he is pack fodder in the US peloton? Me thinks the hot sauce has a bit more of a "kick" than he wants to admit.

 

[TubularBills]

I wonder how far down Landis has to fall before anyone gives him credit for being the only rider with the cojones to do what he's doing.

He lied-yes. And everyone is thinking what a rat he is, and that he should pay all that money back he received from the Floyd Defense Fund.

It seems ironic that trying to buy back your soul from the Devil involves so much more devastation than the initial selling of it.

As for the interview, it seems honest. He's not as contrite as many would like, but he spoke honestly. I give him an A just for agreeing to the interview.

Agreed, in spirit.

Unless, it's a calculated spin campaign?

No criticism and reserved Kudos to Floyd, but I can't help feel that there may be ulterior motives?

Question though... I remember reading in an early report circa 2006, that in a desperation call to Lance, he was counseled to deny everything? Anyone have a link, source or reference? A confirmed source would potentially confirm the absolute hypocrisy of the Armstrong lie.

 

[Blakeslee]

2. You won the Tour in 2006, yet in 2009 (Ouch) you were utterly lousy. Why?...was this b/c you were riding clean?

Riding clean was certainly part of it (a large part of it), but it is likely there are other factors involved as well in Floyd's drop in performance. Three which come to mind:

1. Floyd had what sounded like fairly major surgery to correct the problem with his hip. It's not at all uncommon to see professional athletes performance suffer after surgery, in some cases athletes never return to the level they were at pre-surgery.

2. Floyd was out of the sport for 2+ years. That much time away from racing is bound to have a negative effect on performance.

3. Age. Floyd is in his mid thirties now, past his prime and heading into the downside of his career.

 

[Blakeslee]

One point I didn't agree with Floyd on was the part where he was talking about the need for the anti-doping authorities not to impose absolute penalties and to consider the circumstances of each offense when determining the severity of the penalty. This would be a nice idea in theory, but in practice there needs to be absolute limits set. There is just too much potential for abuse, opening the door for the kinds of stories we have already seen put forward by riders who have tested positive (from the somewhat credible to the downright dishonest). Contador's beef story is a perfect example, it is likely we would see a lot of riders offering similar sorts of explanations.

 

[Juicy McDrip]

Whoa! Amish Top Gun!

Touch him and score Maximum Points....

 

[Nearly]

The guy is central in 2 ongoing lawsuits. He cannot easily share new specifics with the press.
I am not sure the interview could have gotten much more out of a man in this situation.
I do like Floyd's up front atitude, it's just getting better and better. He's not trying to make a saint out of himself, just want to be able to say the truth and ride his bike. Some very elimentary things in life. I also applaud likes to race, after all of this, even if he's given up on riding the TdF ever again, his obvious main goal in life until something new comes up.
One thing, he says he can't go and ask someone for advice on what to do? If his letters and emails were NOT written by a team of young entreprising lawyers, Floyd himself is quite a genious, with a wit! And why would I gamble on him lying about anything today, I may have to give him even more credit than I already have. Definately the coolest ex-doper. Or, pro cyclist, period, by lack of many clean ones to rate him against.

Yes, to me it seemed he had a whole army of advisers when putting together those emails. Mind you in the in the CN interview he does not deny ulterior motives preferring to stress self redemption motives.

CN: People have said that you have decided to do all this because you were angry that you were singled out when other people were in fact involved in doping and you wanted to strike back.

FL: No matter what the motivation is. The facts are the facts. If they want to distract from those facts it means they don't want to face the situation in cycling. The facts don't change.

So in terms of honesty the interview is moving in the right direction, kind of ....

 

[hrotha]

Wha??

EPO wasn't detectable until 2001, correct? And even then, it was easy to use a bit of laundry detergent on your "wick" to fool the pee test, right?? I think you're giving a bit of a 'free pass' to the guy who wore yellow from '99-2005

Also, if Floyd thinks "the drugs help, but not as much as your think"... how does he hold off the world's best riders over 4 mountain passes ('06 Tour), yet two years later he is pack fodder in the US peloton? Me thinks the hot sauce has a bit more of a "kick" than he wants to admit.

My post had nothing to do with Armstrong. The dates I gave correspond to the last year without a hematocrit cap, and the years between Landis's little stroll in the Alps and his most recent races, because it was a comment about the effectivity of EPO and the decline of Landis's performance.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

One point I didn't agree with Floyd on was the part where he was talking about the need for the anti-doping authorities not to impose absolute penalties and to consider the circumstances of each offense when determining the severity of the penalty. This would be a nice idea in theory, but in practice there needs to be absolute limits set. There is just too much potential for abuse, opening the door for the kinds of stories we have already seen put forward by riders who have tested positive (from the somewhat credible to the downright dishonest). Contador's beef story is a perfect example, it is likely we would see a lot of riders offering similar sorts of explanations.

+1

Once you let the slope get slippery, pretty much anyone can slide off it.

Maybe that's why it's called 'doping control' and not 'doping elimination'.

 

[lean mean &green]

One point I didn't agree with Floyd on was the part where he was talking about the need for the anti-doping authorities not to impose absolute penalties and to consider the circumstances of each offense when determining the severity of the penalty. This would be a nice idea in theory, but in practice there needs to be absolute limits set. There is just too much potential for abuse, opening the door for the kinds of stories we have already seen put forward by riders who have tested positive (from the somewhat credible to the downright dishonest). Contador's beef story is a perfect example, it is likely we would see a lot of riders offering similar sorts of explanations.

+1

Once you let the slope get slippery, pretty much anyone can slide off it.

Maybe that's why it's called 'doping control' and not 'doping elimination'.

i disagree vehemently.

suspension/punishment should be firm, fair, consistent, immediate, and PROPORTIONATE.

i'm rushing (i want to go for a ride) but here's what that might look like:
tier 1
drugs/practices with minimal effectiveness, weak stimulants, or where evidence is generally weak, etc, gets you 1 year minimum.

tier 2
drugs that have significant benefits gets you 2 years. ie hormone manipulation, drugs used in combination with complex practices, or drugs found in small amounts

tier 3
drugs/practices that completely offset competitive balance. ie solid evidence of EPO, transfusions, powerful anabolics or obvious hormone manipulation. 4 years to life with first offense.

lastly, 2 offenses no matter the tier gets you a lifetime suspension maybe? i haven't thought through it that far yet.

in the current system, if i'm going to take one drug i might as well take them all and start the autologous transfusion cycle since the most that will happen is a 2 year suspension.

in a tiered system the penalties are proportional. if you want to play with powerful methods you also risk lengthy bans with your first offense. sound better?

another benefit would be fewer drawn out legal battles over smaller offenses. there would be less incentive to exhaust legal options, perform cover-ups, long drawn out appeals if suspensions were shorter. in other words, when a wealthy athlete gets busted for something like, i don't know...small amounts of clenbuterol, they don't spend millions of dollars to avoid what is only a 1 year vacation. they are still shamed but WADA doesn't spend their entire yearly budget fighting one athlete. remember, WADA has limited resources too, that would mean they could spend less prosecuting dopers and would have more cash to actually perform testing and to research new testing methods.

 

[nevada]

Somehow, since he's started telling the truth , he seems less ugly.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Also, if Floyd thinks "the drugs help, but not as much as your think"...me thinks the hot sauce has a bit more of a "kick" than he wants to admit.

I tend to agree with you. But it's too subjective of a comment. Who is the "you" he is speaking to? The masses who watch from a couch? WADA officials? Hardened fans like us? Floyd did ride fairly well at the Gila this year. Considering a dozen or so guys ahead of him were on the sauce, and if he were a bit younger, had a better hip, on a better team, he probably would win races like this in a natural world.

Suspension/punishment should be firm, fair, consistent, immediate, and PROPORTIONATE.

In an ideal world, yes. Just like in the judicial world punishment fits crimes. But with the UCI in charge of cycling, no. I mean, they just tried to cover up the Contador case in all likelihood. But it's not only the UCI who are a problem, look at many other country's own anti-doping program. There just isn't the thoroughness or blind justice needed. Until there's a total overhaul and the UCI, or whatever replaces it, plus individual national anti-doping organizations have the resources and wherewithal to take on each case in an objective and needed manner, we're simply not going to get "firm, fair, consistent, immediate and proportionate" sanctions, and shouldn't even consider it until that time.

 

[TexPat]

As an aside, has anyone conduted a poll to determine how many of us care whether or not PEDs are used in professional cycling. Since "everyone does it" and it levels the playing field in the minds of the cynics...

 

[tubularglue]

you mean a poll about whether we care if people cheat ?


Is that what you mean. A competition of who cheats the best ?

 

[TexPat]

No, the question I ask is, "would you still be a fan if you know that everyone dopes?"
Sorry, I don't mean to derail the topic.